Wakilii

Nakanjako & Ors v Segaluma & Ors (Miscellaneous Application No. 863 of 2015)

High Court · [2015] UGHCLD 44 · 2015 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for committal to civil prison for contempt of court arising from alleged disobedience of temporary injunction order
Decision
Application for committal for contempt dismissed

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

Held that a draft consent judgment proposing an out-of-court settlement does not constitute contempt of a temporary injunction order. The temporary injunction did not prohibit parties from exploring settlement avenues. Allegations of harassment and water disconnection fell outside the scope of the injunction order and did not amount to contempt. Application dismissed with costs.

Outcome

Application for committal for contempt dismissed

Facts

The Applicants obtained a temporary injunction in HCMA No. 198 of 2013 restraining the Respondents from evicting them or interfering with their possession of Plot 2461 Block 223, Kyadondo, or alienating the property pending disposal of the main suit. The Applicants alleged that the Respondents defied the court order by continuously harassing, threatening and trespassing on the suit land, disconnecting water supply, and threatening them to cede their interest in the property. The Applicants relied on a draft consent judgment prepared by the Respondents' lawyers proposing terms for joint sale of the property as evidence of contempt. The Respondents denied contravening the court order, stating they were not responsible for water supply and that the draft consent was merely a settlement proposal which the Applicants never signed or agreed to.

Issues

  1. Whether the Respondents have acted and or behaved in contempt of the court order.
  2. What are the remedies available to the parties.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the Respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Contempt of Court — Definition and Scope
Contempt of court exists not to protect the dignity of judges but to ensure that justice is done by prohibiting acts and words tending to obstruct the administration of justice. It may take many forms including contempt in the face of the court, prejudicing a fair trial, or refusing to obey an order of the court.
Civil Procedure — Contempt of Court — Classification
Contempt of court can be classified as either criminal contempt, consisting of words or acts which impede or interfere with the administration of justice, or contempt of disobedience of judgments, orders or other process of court involving private injury.
Civil Procedure — Contempt of Court — Settlement Proposals
A draft consent judgment proposing an out-of-court settlement does not constitute contempt of a temporary injunction order where the injunction did not prohibit parties from exploring settlement avenues and the draft was never signed or agreed to by the other party.
Civil Procedure — Temporary Injunctions — Scope of Orders
A temporary injunction order restraining eviction and interference with possession does not prohibit parties from exploring out-of-court settlement of the underlying dispute. Courts encourage such settlements to avoid the costs and time of litigation.

Legislation cited (20)

Cases cited (5)

  • Stanbic Bank (U) Ltd & Another v Commissioner General Uganda Revenue Authority (HCMA No. 0042 of 2010)
  • Jenison v Baker [1972] 1 All ER 997
  • Muriisa Nicholas v Attorney General & 3 Others (HCMA No. 035 of 2012)
  • The Proctor & Gamble Co. v Kyole James Mutisho & 2 Others (HCMA No. 135 of 2012)
  • Stanbic Bank (U) Ltd & Jacobsen Power Plant Ltd v Uganda Revenue Authority (HCMA No. 42 of 2010)

Cases citing this judgment (1)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Nakanjako & Ors v Segaluma & Ors (Miscellaneous Application No. 863 of 2015) [2015] UGHCLD 44 (4 December 2015)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.